Sex Offender Registries and Community Notification Laws:
An Ethical Dilemma

by
Amy Thorson

NW 62-OM
OM 4803 - Organizational Ethics

John Brown University
June 2009

Situation Definition
Introduction of the Facts Sex offenders in American society are often seen as repulsive, violent individuals that deserve to be feared and punished to the fullest extent of the law. Their crimes are deemed the worst kind of violation of another human being. In fact, “the vehemence of the hatred for sex offenders is unmatched by attitudes to any other offenders” (Logan, 1999). Many state and federal laws have been passed in an effort to protect the public from these predatory sex offenders. The laws are aimed specifically at registering sex offenders, documenting sex crimes, and disseminating this information to the general public. The Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act of 1994 requires that all states create registries for individuals convicted of sex crimes against children or any other sexually violent offense (Scholle, 2000). In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed Megan’s Law, which allows each state the discretion to establish criteria for registry disclosure, “but compels them to make private and personal information on registered sex offenders available to the public” (Klaas, 2008). Because many states depend on the federal government for funding of law enforcement programs, non-compliance with these requirements means a loss of federal dollars. In effect, the federal government has mandated that offender information be released, but the states must decide which offenders will have their information disclosed, how much information is gathered and how and to whom it will be disseminated, and the standards and procedures for making these determinations (Logan, 2009). Although states have been given this autonomy in their execution of federal law, each state-specific law must still comply with the Jacob Wetterling Act (Scholle, 2000). Today, all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government have some sort of registration requirement for criminal sex offenders (Logan, 1999).
Introduction to the Conflicting Principles and Values At their core, sex offender registries and community notification laws are intended to protect victims, potential victims, and the public from further harm done by offenders. This is accomplished by keeping track of offenders and making their places of residence and details of their crimes known. The community notifications satisfy the public’s “right to know.” Further, the laws are thought to increase community awareness, knowledge of violent predators, and vigilance in the protection of children and other victims. In addition to educating the general public, registries also provide law enforcement officials with a valuable tool to identify, monitor, and track sex offenders (Scholle, 2000). Lastly, and perhaps the most controversial, is the premise that the registries and notifications provide preventive or deterrent effects for sex offenders. Supporters say that the laws “not only protect against crime but deter it: both for the potential offender…as well as for those who might otherwise commit a first sex offense but for the potential impact” (Logan, 1999). In contrast to the possible protection sex offender laws provide, registries and notifications impact an offender’s right to privacy. The offender has no control over what personal information will be gathered or published, or to whom the information will be given. The increased community awareness might also serve to create an environment of vigilantism and harassment towards the offender. Although law enforcement officials use registries to track offenders, these lists are inclusive of all levels of offenders, and can be counterproductive by making “it harder for law enforcement to focus its resources on the truly dangerous” sex offenders (Hardenbergh, 2009). Finally, the deterrent effect of these laws is also in question. A 1995 study conducted by the State of Washington found that “sex offender notification only creates an illusion of safety...[and] there is no evidence to suggest that notification is effective in reducing sex offense” rates or recidivism (Jacobs, 2003).
The Ethical Question The controversy surrounding sex offender registry and community notifications laws is clear. Both sides of the issue present compelling arguments in defense of their respective positions. The question examined in this paper is: Is it ethical for law enforcement officials to require sex offenders to comply with post-conviction registries and to disseminate the registry information to the public?
Analysis of the Situation
Analysis of the Conflicting Principles and Values The first issue is whether the public’s right to know outweighs an offender’s right to privacy. Proponents of community notifications argue that the information disseminated is imperative to the safety of children and many other potential victims, and that this safety cannot be compromised in favor of an individual’s right to privacy. The argument also goes that the public can and should be provided certain types of information in the interest of public safety. Further, protecting the public from sex offenders is a primary governmental interest, and the government’s duty to keep its citizens safe is always more important than the privacy of individuals convicted of sex crimes (Klaas, 2008). Some have gone so far as to say that sex offenders should have signs on their doors identifying them as such, and that “if they’re that evil, they don’t deserve privacy” (McLean, 2001). Finally, although an offender may have some claim to privacy, this right does not include “shielding [the] offender’s past from the public, as this information always has been a matter of record” as criminal arrest information is available to the public (Beatty, 1997). And because the information gathered through the registries is collected using tax payer money, it should be completely accessible by the public to serve the public good. However, there is a strong argument for an offender’s right to privacy, including their past criminal histories and details of sexual offenses. Some states do not have tiered offense policies which separate different types of sex offenses into different levels or categories. Because of this, many offenders who engaged in sex acts with consenting partners, who are/were juvenile offenders, or who engage in homosexual acts are forced to become part of registries and have their personal information made available to the public. Additionally, offenders argue that the registries and notifications constitute additional punishments above and beyond prison sentences and/or parole and probation (Electronic Privacy Information Center, 2009). The second issue is concerned with whether the heightened awareness, knowledge, and public vigilance which result from sex offender registries and community notifications invite acts of discrimination or vigilantism. Registry information is indeed important to the public in several different ways. First, the information allows a community to become actively involved in the detection of new crimes perpetrated by offenders, educates them on violent offenders living in their neighborhoods, and empowers citizens in the protection of potential victims within their communities. However, many registries contain a high rate of inaccuracies and misinformation. According to Lees and Tewksbury (2006), the potential for “being known or recognized as a sex offender in the community is greatly diminished if information on registry pages is not correct or is incomplete,” and the community is not really informed or educated by registries that contain significant amounts of incorrect data (p. 54). Known offenders may face difficulties in finding jobs, maintaining housing, and the threat of physical harm or property damage. These consequences are definitely not unique to sex offenders, but “registration may significantly enhance such experiences” (Lees & Tewksbury, 2006). Offenders also fear acts of vigilantism, such as that against convicted rapist Wayne DuMond. In 1985, DuMond was arrested for the rape of a 17-year old girl in Arkansas (Waas, 2005). Before his trial, DuMond was attacked in his home and castrated by a group from within his own community (Waas, 2005). States have also been guilty of a form of vigilantism against sex offenders. States including California, Florida, Georgia, and Montana have conducted chemical castration of some offenders (Logan, 1999). Proponents argue that vigilantism rates are fewer than 1 percent (Beatty, 1997), and that many states discourage these acts by “warning about possible prosecution for such actions” against known sex offenders (Scholle, 2000). The third issue is whether registries provide an effective tool for law enforcement in identifying and monitoring sex offenders. There is no question that offenders who comply with registry requirements are identified to law enforcement. Those offenders’ information is made immediately available to law enforcement officials through a variety of state and federal databases. Offenders must also update address and employment information as part of registry requirements, which afford law enforcement a way of monitoring and tracking the offenders over a period of time (Scholle, 2000). Law enforcement officials could use this information to link registered offenders to unsolved cases, assist in investigations of similar crimes, and identify offender growth trends in their jurisdictions. Also, the community notifications aid law enforcement officials because the public can be a very effective tool in crime prevention by recognizing certain individuals or behaviors in their neighborhoods and notifying police. On the other hand, “the police are aware of only a small percentage of sex offenders” because many offenders may be trusted adults who go unreported for a number of reasons (Jacobs, 2003). According to Scholle (2005), Opponents also believe that notification provides a false sense of security to the community. To reduce citizen complacency, law enforcement officials need to warn the public that many unidentified sex offenders reside in the community and may not be listed on the registry. Furthermore, sex offenders also can travel from an area where people know them to one where people do not (p. 22).

Because the laws criminalize not only the actual sex offense, but also the failure to comply with state and federal registry requirements (Logan, 1999), law enforcement officials must keep up with all registrants, make in-home visits and non-compliance arrests. This detracts from their ability to protect the general public from truly dangerous sexual predators. The final issue is whether registries and notifications provide any preventive or deterrent effects on potential or convicted sex offenders. Several instances of offenders being picked up for lesser violations, such as loitering or consorting with children, have led to arrests of previously violent sex offenders and possible prevention of further crimes (Beatty, 1997). One of the most compelling arguments is a quote from a registered California sex offender who said, “While the many new laws aimed at people like me are sometimes difficult to live with, as they result in constant surveillance, their benefits outweigh the inconvenience…Sex offending is an addictive behavior…The law increasing public access to sex offenders’ names” may have the effect of helping to control this behavior (Burns, 1999). Additionally, once sex offenders are released from prison, the worst place for them is “out of sight, away from the scrutiny and treatment that could prevent them from committing new crimes” (New York Times Staff, 2006). However, there is no solid evidence that illustrates a significant drop in recidivism or new offenses because of the registry requirements or community notifications. In fact, it could be argued that notifications create added stressors and restrictions on offenders which can contribute to recidivism and the failure to register. Offenders who are attempting to re-integrate into society face challenges in getting jobs, finding housing, and establishing relationships. Community notifications only add to the stress of this process through labeling, stigmatization, and ostracism. “If nothing is working out [for the offender]…then the individual has nothing to lose by offending again” (Jacobs, 2003). Additionally, offenders who find themselves victims of discrimination or ridicule due to community notifications “will stop letting the police know where they live. Once ex-offenders go underground, the police will have difficulty” in locating them again (Jacobs, 2003).
External Factors The most important external factor affecting sex offenders is the growing use of shaming punishments. Prior to the creation of sex offender registries and community notification laws, some states had criminal registry requirements for all criminals convicted of certain violent crimes (Logan, 1999). However, most of those registries did not include a formal community notification requirement. These types of community notifications re-introduce to modern society the idea of punishing criminals with shame and ridicule. Early American colonists used public whippings and confinement to the stocks as ways of shaming offenders. Nathaniel Hawthorne’s character Hester Prynne was made to wear a large scarlet A on her chest as indication that she had committed adultery. However, most punishments in the current criminal justice system occur in private. Prisoners are segregated into prisons that are often found in remote areas away from society. Any punishment given to them happens behind the prison walls. Even murderers who receive capital sentences of lethal injection or the electric chair have their punishments carried out in front of a very small audience, if there are is any audience at all. Community notifications that include the address of a sex offender’s home, and details of his/her crime are meant to shame the offender into obeying the law, and almost certainly invite ridicule (or at the very least disgust) from the general public. Perhaps punishments that including shaming the offender provide a sense of satisfaction to the community that a prison sentence does not. But, this type of punishment does not allow a sex offender to ever completely pay his/her debt to society. Registries and community notifications serve to continue the punishment of a sex offender long after their jail sentences have been served. If it is then okay to take these actions against sex offenders, the question must be raised if future punishments for other types of crimes will follow suit. Will communities be notified to take extra precautions because a car thief or a burglar has moved into the neighborhood? This may sound extreme, but only twenty years ago sex offenders were afforded the same level of anonymity as most other offenders.
Moral Duties to Children and Other Potential Victim Groups The largest segment of the population that stands to be protected by sex offender registries and community notifications is children. They are particularly vulnerable to predators because of their age, lack of life experience, trusting nature, and the physical inability to fight off an attack by an adult. Society at large has a duty to protect its children from harm, and to educate children on how to care for and protect themselves from danger. Parents use registries to educate themselves and others on the whereabouts of predators in order to protect their children from potential victimization. The community is also protected from the potential of further crimes in that it recognizes offenders, knows the details of their crimes, and can be vigilant in watching for more of the same type of behavior.
Ethical Theories Christianity. An approach to examining the arguments in favor of registries and notifications from a Christian perspective most likely lies in Exodus 21:23: “But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (New International Version [NIV]). Because sex offenders have treated their victims in an inhumane fashion, they deserve to be treated in a like manner. Offenders inflict countless wounds upon their victims, and in effect take their lives from them. Children and adults alike can never be the same after being the victim of a sexual assault. Therefore, it is completely justified to inflict emotional pain upon offenders, to change their lives so that they also become victimized by their crimes, and to force them to publicly take responsibility for their actions. Short of capital punishment, registries and community notifications require offenders to continue to be punished for the wrongs they have committed for the remainder of their lives. Those who argue against registries and notifications might cite Matthew 7:12: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them to do you” (NIV). Community notifications are thought to be unfair because they require a separate punishment above and beyond the normal methods of criminal sentencing and incarceration. Most people would not want their own crimes and/or sins to be put out for public display in an ongoing way, and to be continually criminalized for an offense for which they have already been punished. Utilitarianism. Utilitarian arguments would definitely favor sex offender registries and community notification. By definition, utilitarianism is “a general term for any view that holds…policies should be evaluated on the basis of the benefits and costs they will impose on society” (Velasquez, 2006). The type of crimes that sex offenders commit are most commonly perpetrated upon children and are highly likely to be repeated. These children may then grow up to be maladjusted adults who cannot ultimately be productive members of society because of the crimes committed against them. So, although some opponents argue the legality of these offender registries, the need to protect the children in our society is far more important than the need to protect the civil rights of convicted sex offenders, especially those who victimize children. The benefits of protecting society from violent predators, the possibility of keeping a crime from being committed in the first place, and educating the community to become more vigilant are greater than the costs of shame and loss of privacy for individual offenders. Moral rights. Clearly everyone has the moral right to live a life free of danger, harm, and the far-reaching mental and physical effects of sex crimes. Society in general also has a duty to ensure that sex crimes do not occur, that no one is victimized by sex offenders, and that communities remain safe for the people who live there. The moral right to a life free of this type of victimization is not in question, nor is the duty of a community to protect its vulnerable members from harm. The real question a moral rights theorist would be concerned with is: does a sex offender have a moral right to privacy? Velasquez (2006) says that moral rights have three distinct features (p. 74). These features include that moral rights are correlated with duties; provide individuals with “autonomy and equality in the free pursuit of their interests;” and, provide a basis for “justifying one’s actions and for invoking the protection or aid of others” (Velasquez, 2006). To the first point, an offender does not appear to have a moral right to privacy because most would argue that neither the community nor law enforcement officials have a duty to protect the offender from having their criminal arrest and sentencing information released. In fact, criminal history information has long been part of the public record and is disseminated for the public good. Secondly, society gains from the release of sex offender information. Therefore, the offender is not free to pursue a “moral right” to privacy because society stands to benefit more from the dissemination of such information than the offender does from keeping the information private. Lastly, sex offenders have not respected the moral rights of their victims to well-being and a life free of victimization. Society must protect those victims, and the release of sex offender registry information and community notifications aid in that protection. When offenders commit crimes against the community, they forfeit any right to privacy that could lead to further harm or victimization, and gives the public the basis for keeping a sex offender from exercising that right. Justice. A new idea emerging within sex offender treatment programs is the idea of restorative justice. Restorative justice is in stark contrast to retributive justice, which is the basis for sex offender registries and community notification laws. Where retributive justice seeks to assess blame and balance the “harm to the victim by inflicting harm on the offender,” the restorative justice model focuses on “balancing the harm done by the offender with making it right” (Schwartz & Cellini, 1997). Retributive justice theorists would argue that because the offender knowingly inflicted harm upon someone else, the offender has been convicted of the crime, and that notifying the community of the offender’s crime and whereabouts is directly proportionate to the offense, that sex offender registries and community notification laws are a perfect example of justice being done for both the victim and the offender. However, restorative justice theorists believe that crime is a violation of people and relationships, and that it creates an obligation to make things right between those individuals (Schwartz & Cellini, 1997). More specifically, restorative justice “involves the victim, the offender, and the community in a search for solutions which promote repair, reconciliation, and reassurance” (Schwartz & Cellini, 1997). The only way to do this is to attempt to help the offender re-integrate into society, have the offender acknowledge the pain of the victim, and take material or symbolic responsibility for their actions (Schwartz & Cellini, 1997). More importantly, the idea of retributive justice recognizes that many offenders come from within a community, and that when they are released from prison, they often return to the same community. Because offenders are stigmatized and their crimes made public, they can never become fully functioning members of society again. Retributive justice also argues that by notifying the community of an offender’s crimes, victims are often re-victimized by the scrutiny placed on the offender and their crime. Restorative justice theorists also argue that retributive punishments for sex offenders are not consistent because community notification laws vary widely from state to state for different types and categories of offenders. Care theory. Care theory is generally supportive of offender registries and community notification laws. There is a definite intimate relationship between parents and children which creates an obligation to exercise care towards those children. However, there is a larger obligation to care for members of the community, and not just those individuals with whom there is a close relationship. The communitarian ethic of care “sees concrete communities and communal relationships as having a fundamental value that should be preserved and maintained” (Velasquez, 2006). Therefore, friends, neighbors, and family members of victims have no moral obligation towards offenders to protect them or their perceived rights, even if that person is a part of the community. Because the offender becomes a fringe member of society, the more important relationships in the community must be preserved by protecting the community from offenders. Also, the offender has in effect harmed and exploited a member of the community, and therefore is not protected by the communitarian ethic of care. Virtue theory. “Virtues…are habits of dealing with one’s emotions, desires, and actions in a manner that seeks the reasonable middle ground and avoids unreasonable extremes,” and something is morally right if “in carrying out the action the agent exercises…a morally virtuous character” (Velasquez, 2006). Virtue theorists would claim that sex offenders have obviously failed in their pursuit of a morally virtuous character in the commission of their offenses. Upon examining a sex offense, one can find no moral virtues that would result from this type of action, such as gentleness, responsibility, or self-control. In fact, sex offenders exhibit what some would call a morally bankrupt character in that they indulge themselves, harm others in their attempt to exert power over them, and rob victims of happiness and freedom.
Conclusion
I will admit that I am biased on this subject, and that it was a challenge to present any arguments against offender registries or notification laws. I worked in law enforcement for over ten years, and I am married to a police officer. I have seen firsthand the devastation caused by sex crimes, and can not begin to adequately describe the feelings that overtake you when you must comfort a child who has been victimized. With that said, I believe wholeheartedly that sex offender registries and community notification laws are a good idea. The public good that is served through these laws is far more beneficial to society than the protection of an individual offender’s right to privacy. I don’t believe that an offender has any right to privacy after they have been convicted of violating someone in a sexually violent or deviant manner. I also do not believe that the right to privacy is a universal right, but that it can and should be revoked or ignored if the greater good is in jeopardy. What good is done in protecting a sex offender’s privacy if even one child is victimized? I see no benefit in allowing offenders to return anonymously to society, especially when parents and other members of the community would be oblivious to the particular danger the offender presents. Simply put, “if you don’t want your name exposed as a child molester, don’t molest” children (Beatty, 1997). Registries and notification laws are an effective way for communities to become actively engaged in the safety of their neighborhoods; they educate society about ways to keep children safe from being victimized; and, they act as a form of punishment for offenders that does not allow them to forget or runaway from their crimes and the consequences thereof.

References
Barker, K. L. (Ed). (2002). Zondervan NIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corporation.
Beatty, D. (1997, October). Community notification – it’s the right thing to do. Corrections Today, 59(6), 20. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from Academic Search Elite database (AN9711264617).
Burns, M. (1999). Do sexual predators have the right to privacy? Retrieved June 5, 2009, from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~burnsm/SOR.html
Electronic Privacy Information Center (2009). Smith v. Doe. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from http://epic.org/privacy/meganslaw/
Hardenbergh, M. (2009, March 16). Sex offender law violates rights. Retrieved June 6, 2009, from http://blog.aclu.org/2009/03/16/sex-offender-law-violates-rights-puts-kids-at-risk/
Jacobs, D. (2003, February). Why sex offender notification won’t keep our children safe. Corrections Today, 65(1), 22. Retrieved June 5, 2009, from Academic Search Elite database (AN10296938).
Klaas, M. (2008). Megan’s law legislation in all 50 states. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from http://www.klaaskids.org/pg-legmeg.htm
Lees, M. & Tewksbury, R. (2006, February). Understanding policy and programmatic issues regarding sex offender registries. Corrections Today, 68(1), 54-57. Retrieved June 5, 2009, from Academic Search Elite database (AN19865374).

Logan, W.A. (1999). Liberty interests in the preventive state: Procedural due process and sex offender community notification laws. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 89(4), 1167-1232. Retrieved June 5, 2009, from Academic Search Elite database (AN2925458).
McLean, C. (2001, July 9). Too evil for privacy. Newsmagazine (National Edition), 28(14), 24. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from Academic Search Elite database (AN4836353).
New York Times Staff (2006, December 30). Sex offenders in exile. New York Times. Retrieved June 6, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/30/opinion/30sat1.html
Scholle, M. (2000, July). Sex offender registration and community notification laws. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 69(10), 17-24. Retrieved June 5, 2009, from Academic Search Elite database (AN3409419).
Schwartz, B.K. and Cellini, H.R. (2007). The sex offender: New insights, treatment innovations and legal developments, 2, xv-xviii. Retrieved June 5, 2009 from http://www.civicresearchinstitute.com/toc/TSO2_toc.pdf
Velasquez, M. (2006). Business ethics: Concepts and cases [6th edition]. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Waas, M.S. (2005, September 1). DuMond case revisited; A reminder of Huckabee’s role in his freedom. Arkansas Times. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=154e1aad-fd18-4efd-8d80-b5dab8559419